BI510023RT

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BI510023RT
                                                  
          MARTHA A. JACOBS                        RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: AH430089B
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On September 23, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenant filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued August 19, 1987. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 945 West End Avenue, New York, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator denied the tenants' complaint seeking rent 
          reduction based on the owner's failure to maintain required 
          services.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced on August 26, 1986 when the 
          petitioner herein filed a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in 
          Building-Wide Services wherein she sought a rent reduction based on 
          the owner's alleged failure to provide a resident superintendent, 
          consistent hot water, three full-time employees and trash 
          collection on a regular basis.  The tenant also asserted that the 
          new windows in the public areas are difficult to open.  No other 
          tenants joined in the complaint.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September 
          26, 1988 and stated that there is a resident superintendent and 
          submitted a statement by that individual, that hot water is always 
          provided except for one and one half days in June when there was a 
          mechanical failure, that trash is picked up every day and that new 
          windows were recently installed throughout the building.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on March 5, 1987 and 
          revealed that hot water was being supplied, that there was no 












          BI510023RT

          resident superintendent, that there is no garbage collection 
          anymore but a large plastic garbage pail is available on each 
          floor, that the public halls and stairways were clean and that 
          replacement windows were installed in the public areas.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          10, 1987 and terminated the proceeding based on the report of the 
          inspector.

               On appeal the tenant states that the Administrator's order was 
          incorrect in that heat and hot water problems reoccur, trash 
          collection is sporadic, the windows are still not in good repair, 
          the three employees mentioned in the complaint are still not 
          working in the building and there is no resident full time 
          superintendent.  With regard to the issue of the superintendent, 
          the tenant states that the individual in question resides at 
          another address.  The petition was served on the owner on December 
          3, 1987. 

               The owner filed a response on December 11, 1987 wherein it 
          stated, in sum, that the tenant's petition was merely a restatement 
          of allegations rejected by the agency in other proceedings, that 
          services are being maintained and that the order here under review 
          was correctly issued and should be affirmed.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner notes that the tenants filed a rent reduction 
          complaint which was assigned Docket No. AL430057B. In that 
          proceeding the tenants made similar complaints about the heat and 
          hot water, superintendent and employees.  The Administrator issued 
          an order on August 31, 1987 wherein the complaint was denied based 
          on a DHCR inspector's report.  The petitioner-tenant herein filed 
          an administrative appeal of that order.  The appeal was assigned 
          Docket No. BJ410217RT.  On February 7, 1991 the Commissioner 
          remanded the proceeding to the Administrator for further 
          investigation of the issue of the status of the resident 
          superintendent only.

               On July 1, 1992 the Administrator issued an order bearing 
          Docket No. FB410026RP.  In this order, issued pursuant to the 
          Commissioner's remand, the Administrator ruled that the complaint 
          of a full time resident superintendent could not be confirmed from 
          the evidence in the record.  The Administrator affirmed the order 
          issued in Docket No. AL430057B.  The tenants did not file an 
          administrative appeal from the Administrator's order issued 
          pursuant to the remand.  Therefore, the issue of whether or not the 
          owner was maintaining this service was determined by the Division 
          subsequent to the filing of the instant petition and a final order 
          was issued which is not unappealable herein.







          BI510023RT

               With regard to the other issues in this proceeding, the 
          Commissioner notes that the DHCR inspector who investigated the 
          complaint is neither a party to the proceeding nor an adversary.  
          The inspector' report is entitled to more probative weight than the 
          allegations of the petitioner, especially in light of the fact that 
          the petitioner has offered no evidence to rebut said report.  The 
          order here under review is affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner
                                   






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name